As many will know, there are a range of laws at each of the three levels of government in Australia, local, state, and federal, affecting aviculture. Which laws govern which aspect of our hobby? This article aims to give you a brief outline of the matter so perhaps when you see CCBFA lobbying for or against some amendment you’ll have a clearer understanding of the source of the problem and maybe you’ll get motivated to write in support of our action.
All laws at all levels of government are updated at regular intervals, often every 10 years. And of course, amendments can be and are passed by our elected officials in the interim periods. It is during these times that advocating for change is most fruitful, but we are not the only advocates for change – there are others who oppose aviculture.
Local government – all about the neighbours
In terms of animal keeping local government is largely concerned with neighbourhood amenity– factors that may affect your neighbour’s enjoyment of their property. Many of us keep dogs and maybe even a cat. Your local Council requires you to register these animals including their microchip number. This enables lost or escaped animals to be returned promptly and is now used to monitor breeding and identify unregistered and potentially unscrupulous intensive breeding facilities. This is not so relevant to bird keeping unless you run a commercial enterprise or pet shop – most of us are hobbyists.
For birdkeepers neighbourhood amenity focusses on factors such as noise, smell, rodents, proximity to neighbours, etc. Many councils implement a range of controls such as limits on the number of birds and planning controls limiting the size of aviaries. Generally, these controls are not rigorously enforced unless neighbours complain.
But neighbours do at times complain. I have dealt with many cases in my time as CCBFA President and in the majority of cases a sensible solution can be negotiated with Council’s compliance officers. However, there is the odd Council, and often it is a single Councilor or more often an overzealous compliance officer who is more intent on the letter of the local law than resolving what is generally a simple neighbourhood dispute.
Despite the above, when local laws are changed it is important to look closely at what is being proposed and the potential effects on bird keeping. Just prior to writing this piece I completed a submission opposing some changes proposed by Gold Coast City Council – just one submission to local government of many.
Often Councils produce their local laws regarding birds based on a state provided model set of local laws, it is for this reason that Animal Care Australia (ACA) in association with CCBFA is preparing recommended local laws for birds and other animals.
Planning controls are also in place that govern the size and location of aviaries, particularly in residential areas. Most planning controls for aviaries are state based but enforced by local government. For example, in NSW the State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008 permits two aviary complexes up to 10 metres square each in residential area. These are classified as exempt development meaning no development application (DA) is needed. For larger complexes a DA can be lodged.
Experience shows that so long as neighbours are aware and supportive there is rarely an issue. Smaller residential blocks, such as those under 400 square metres require more care as neighbours are far closer – it would be wise to submit a DA if your aviaries are not exempt, and always wise to engage with neighbours from the outset to avoid unforeseen issues.
The rise of animal rights – a real and present danger for all who keep and breed animals
You will all be aware of the increasing influence of animal rights extremists who believe no animals, including birds should be kept in captivity. Organisations such a PETA and Animal Liberation are upfront animal rights organisations. Other organisations are less upfront about their animal rights support. The ex-policy director for RSPCA Australia Jed Goodfellow has been central to the recent formation of the Alliance for Animals described on their website as a “national charity leading a strategic alliance of Australia’s key animal protection organisations to create systemic change for animals.” This newly formed alliance includes Animals Australia, Voiceless, World Animal Protection and Humane Society International who all subscribe to animal rights philosophies.
In Australia we also have the Animal Justice Party (AJP) – the political arm of the animal rights movement. The AJP currently has two members in the NSW state government upper house, Emma Hurst MP and Mark Pearson MP and one member in the Victorian upper house, Andy Meddick MP. There are also Councilors elected in a number of local government areas. These politicians are having a real and often concerning influence on animal welfare legislation in these states. The AJP is running candidates in all state elections and many local government elections.
State Government – all about animal welfare and protecting wild native animals
Animal welfare
Government at the state level is responsible for animal welfare. Animal Care Australia’s definition of animal welfare is…
Animal welfare means the physical and mental state of an animal in relation to the conditions in which it lives and dies.
An animal experiences good welfare if the animal is healthy, comfortable, well nourished, safe, is not suffering from unpleasant states such as pain, fear and distress, and is able to express behaviours that are important for its physical and mental state.
Currently the laws governing animal welfare generally sit within the Agriculture or Primary Industries portfolio and hence are the responsibility of the states Agriculture Minister. There are reviews underway of animal welfare laws in many states. In my role as Vice President and Bird Representative for Animal Care Australia I regularly appear at parliamentary inquiries and attend meetings with politicians and senior bureaucrats. Readers can examine relevant submissions and minutes of such meetings on the ACA and CCBFA websites.
CCBFA argues for codes of practice for aviculture at the state level that specify basic standards of care. Such codes already exist, although many need updating. These codes of practice are recommendations and are legally available as a defence should animal welfare charges be laid. Aviculture does a terrific job and has a fantastic history of self-regulation – we do not require enforceable codes that open up our hobby to the overregulation consequences currently being experienced by dog breeders in Australia and many animal keepers and breeders internationally.
State government animal welfare laws is where the war against animal rights extremists is currently being waged.
Animal welfare laws are where animal rights activists in particular the Animal Justice Party’s MPs focus the majority of their attention. These activists have a long term plan, they chip away, adding a little bit of regulation here a policy or licence condition there, and over time this makes it progressively more difficult to keep animals. They argue against captive breeding whilst promoting overregulation of rescue and rehoming. The end game for animal rights is to put an end to all animal keeping including aviculture.
Protecting wild native animals
State governments also have responsibility to regulate the keeping of native animals including birds, reptiles and some native mammals. This is to ensure the protection of wild populations of native animals. Licensing aims to prevent poaching and it also aims to ensure captive birds are not inappropriately released such that cause issues for wild populations.
During the early 1970s legislation was enacted in most states making it illegal to keep native birds. Within the legislation was a list of exempt species which includes many of the common native species we keep – budgerigars, zebra finches, cockatiels, and many other commonly kept species. In addition to these exemptions where lists of other species that could be kept under licence. This system remains in place in various different forms in all states and territories to this day.
There is a problem with the native bird licensing system. It boils down to the omission of a suitable procedure to move species from licence to exempt or from prohibited onto licence, or indeed from licence to prohibited. Such a process was and has never been enacted in most states – South Australia is arguably an exception. This problem has caused all sorts of grief and inconsistencies between states.
Most of the effort over decades by numerous people has been directed at moving one or more species from prohibited to licence or from licence to exempt. In Queensland we recently had major changes to these lists with many common species of finch and parrot moving to exempt and many species of softbill now being able to be kept for the first time. A huge win, yet still no procedure for future list changes.
Negotiations in NSW stalled and have recently restarted, and the process is just about ready to get underway in Victoria (don’t hold your breath). The issues in NSW and likely in Victoria are due to animal rights influences, for example, the NSW based animal rescue organisation WIRES opposes the keeping of any native animals in captivity. In Western Australia a number of years ago the Minister promised an avicultural consultative committee would be setup to address the issue but this has never come to pass. In the Australian Capitol Territory things are much brighter with agreement on list changes – we await implementation.
Details of the negotiations in various states in recent years are all included on the CCBFA website under the documents tab or within the minutes of meetings contained with in our journal Feathered World.
Federal government – all about import and export
I discussed import and export in detail in the previous edition of ABK so I won’t go into detail again. In summary, the federal government is responsible for ensuring animals leaving and arriving through our borders have been legally sourced and that animals entering do not have any disease causing pathogens that are a biosecurity risk to Australia’s wild or captive animals.
Sadly, the import and export of birds is so heavily restricted currently that it has created an incentive for smuggling and likely some limited poaching. CCBFA continues to argue for a sensible import and export system for captive bred birds that is accessible to all. We wish to stop the illegal trade and also ensure the system is not used to profit a few unscrupulous operators.
By: Sam Davis – Animal Care Australia Bird Representative. Originally published: Australian Bird Keeper magazine: August 2022 and then December 2022 ACE Newsletter.
